1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar




the Law of the Sea

Home Forums Community General Chat the Law of the Sea

This topic contains 24 replies, has 9 voices, and was last updated by Avatar of elspru elspru 4 years, 1 month ago.

Viewing 10 posts - 16 through 25 (of 25 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #10300
    Avatar of Altaica
    Altaica
    Participant

    OCEANOPOLIS wrote:

    I dont know what you’re talking about,..What powers, and why attack us?

    Fiji and Tonga

    OCEANOPOLIS wrote:
    That’s a bit paranoid,…

    Ever hear of the Republic of Minerva ‘incident’?

    ouk emou alla tou logou akousantas homologein sophon estin hen

    EDIT: “Fiji” not “Fifi”… The state of Fifi as always been nice to seasteaders. :D

    #10301
    Avatar of Jeff-Chan
    Jeff-Chan
    Participant

    xiagos wrote:
    other provisions of international law do not recognize vessels without nationality, and may be be boarded and perhaps seized by any national authority. But, the UNCLOS is not a stand-alone treaty. It is an extension of other recognized laws and conventions that give nations the power to board and seize.

    Under international law, all vessels must be registered and fly the flag of the nation in which it is registered. A vessel may not have more than national resgistration, or fly more than one flag. A vessel cannot legally change flags during a voyage, or even in a port-of-call unless the ownership of the vessel has changed. A vessel not flying a flag may be stopped and boarded as a suspected unregistered vessel illegally operating on the high seas. If it is indeed unregistered, the vessel amy be declared a pirate vessel and seized.

    The part of the UNCLOS that concerns me is the requirement that all artifical islands, structures, and platforms must be registered and flagged. This effectively makes the creation of a sovereign, seastead all but impossible. The UNCLOS provides for nearby nations to board and seize such an island or structure built on its continental shelf.

    I agree with your reading of UNCLOS.

    Platforms, artificial islands and ships are treated similarly enough to lump them together and contrast them with naturally occuring land, which is treated differently.

    One certainly would not want to build an island within the territorial waters of another nation if the eventual goal was sovereignty. It would be like building a house in your neighbor’s backyard in order to claim that you now own that part of their land. Would they allow that? On the other hand, floating structures in principle are relatively mobile, so you could develop them in territorial waters then move them to open waters later.

    One way of dealing with this issue is to temporarily register the seastead with a non-UNCLOS nation, and then become independent when the seastead has grown sufficiently.

    The first Seasteads will probably be ships or other types of vessels with a Panamanian flag. It would not really be possible to declare sovereignty until much later, possibly never. To be a sovereign nation means to be able to defend it against other sovereign nations. Being able to defend against an existing nation with a blue water navy may be impractical, prohibitively expensive, and/or unnecessary. But it’s probably required for full sovereignty.

    #10304
    Avatar of Altaica
    Altaica
    Participant

    xiagos wrote:

    Actually, the UNCLOS doesn’t say that, as far aas I can find. But, other provisions of international law do not recognize vessels without nationality, and may be be boarded and perhaps seized by any national authority. But, the UNCLOS is not a stand-alone treaty. It is an extension of other recognized laws and conventions that give nations the power to board and seize.

    Under international law, all vessels must be registered and fly the flag of the nation in which it is registered. A vessel may not have more than national resgistration, or fly more than one flag. A vessel cannot legally change flags during a voyage, or even in a port-of-call unless the ownership of the vessel has changed. A vessel not flying a flag may be stopped and boarded as a suspected unregistered vessel illegally operating on the high seas. If it is indeed unregistered, the vessel amy be declared a pirate vessel and seized.

    Maritime wrote:
    Stateless Vessels

    A stateless vessal or one that may, by its conduct, be “assimilated” to statelessness
    does not enjoy the navigation of properly registered vessels. Accordingly,
    the warships and other properly marked enforcement vessels of any state may “inter-
    fere” withtheir navigation by intercepting and boarding them. Some have argued
    for a more expansive stateless vessel doctrine under which the vessel’s stateless status
    gives all states jurisdiction over it. The short answer to such arguments is that a ves-
    sel’s stateless status should not be confused with universal jurisdiction. The legal right
    to interfere with a vessel’s navigation must be distingushed from questions regarding
    jurisdiction over the vessel. It would be more accurate to say that where a state has an
    independent basis in international law for exercising jurisdiction over a vessel that
    turns out to be stateless, there is no state possessed of primacy in the exericise of juris-
    diction. Under those circumstances, a state that had a preexisting basis for exercising
    jurisdisction over the vessel would not be required to defer to the flag state’s primary
    jurisdiction. Any such enforcement action must of course be based on an applicable
    municipal law that extended to the intercepted vessel or those on board the vessel.

    xiagos wrote:
    The part of the UNCLOS that concerns me is the requirement that all artifical islands, structures, and platforms must be registered and flagged. This effectively makes the creation of a sovereign, seastead all but impossible. The UNCLOS provides for nearby nations to board and seize such an island or structure built on its continental shelf.

    One way of dealing with this issue is to temporarily register the seastead with a non-UNCLOS nation, and then become independent when the seastead has grown sufficiently.

    No!. If you want the vessel for be part of indepented state. don’t register it! Even if other State start to reconize the flag you won’t be able to switch over. Even if you find a “port of call” that is capable of accecting to vessel there is no guaranteeing they will be willing too.

    Besides opperating a ship register is one of the easist steps for independance.

    Thou reconization of the flag may only be when the vessel if behaiving.

    States probably will assimilate the ship to a ship without nationality in any sistuation where the state has an
    independent basis in international law for exercising jurisdiction over the ship. Any such enforcement action would be based on an applicable municipal law that extended to the intercepted ship or those on board the ship, not just on the whim.

    Which is of course what UCLOS gives all stateless vessels.

    Flagless==international pariah
    Micronation flag==vessel without nationality(but not a pariah)

    Speaking on the subject of statehoodness. We(seasteads seeking statehood) should only sign(and recognize) the UNCLOS I treaties(Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, Convention on the Continental Shelf, Convention on the High Seas, Convention on Fishing and Conservation of Living Resources of the High Seas). Untill we get a representative in the Assembly of International Seabed Authority we aren’t going to be given any of the protections of UNCLOS III so we shouldn’t pretend to be party to it.

    ouk emou alla tou logou akousantas homologein sophon estin hen

    #10305
    Avatar of Altaica
    Altaica
    Participant

    Jeff wrote:

    One certainly would not want to build an island within the territorial waters of another nation if the eventual goal was sovereignty. It would be like building a house in your neighbor’s backyard in order to claim that you now own that part of their land.

    The contiguous zone IS NOT territorial waters. The Exclusive Economic Zone IS NOT territorial waters.

    Countries will seize your non-mobile structor just as fast as long as it’s closer that 400 nautical miles. Any closer than that and they risk loosing part of there EEZ in the off chance you give recognized.

    Jeff wrote:
    The first Seasteads will probably be ships or other types of vessels with a Panamanian flag. It would not really be possible to declare sovereignty until much later, possibly never. To be a sovereign nation means to be able to defend it against other sovereign nations.

    We don’t need to be a sovereign STATE we only need to be a self governing state.

    Jeff wrote:
    Being able to defend against an existing nation with a blue water navy may be impractical, prohibitively expensive, and/or unnecessary. But it’s probably required for full sovereignty.

    Since we don’t need sovereignty it’s not imported to have a navy able to defend against a State backed attack. Just a Coarst Gaurd capable of defending against a non-state backed assault.

    But there is nothing that says your navy has to be for combat. “For the purposes of this Convention, “warship” means a ship belonging to the armed forces of a State bearing the external marks distinguishing such ships of its nationality, under the command of an officer duly commissioned by the government of the State and whose name appears in the appropriate service list or its equivalent, and manned by a crew which is under regular armed forces discipline.”

    And lets face it without a navy for protection our vessels are going to have to disciplined to

    Know how to run from a fight.

    Know when to run from a fight.

    Know how to surrender.

    ouk emou alla tou logou akousantas homologein sophon estin hen

    #10306
    Avatar of Altaica
    Altaica
    Participant

    Altaica wrote:

    We don’t need to be a sovereign STATE we only need to be a self governing state.

    Sorry for being a bit irate. But being tortured in what would once be called ‘Racial hygiene’

    The ‘nation’, ‘race’, ‘ethnic group’ word games make me a bit peeved.

    ouk emou alla tou logou akousantas homologein sophon estin hen

    #10307
    Avatar of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    Yes, I’ve heard of the Minerva “incident”. They wanted to build a “seastead” (back then the word didnt exist) ON the Minerva shoal. Fixed on the bottom. And Fiji came after them claiming Minerva part of their EEZ….But I am not talking about a fixed seastead, but a floating one, like a floating island. So Minerva “incident” dont apply to these circumstances.

    #10316
    Avatar of Terraformer
    Terraformer
    Participant

    You sure about that?

    What do we do if the nations vote to extend territorial waters by 300nm to 500nm? Move out even further? Or stay where we are and fight if they try moving us?

    I don’t think it’s that big a deal, remaining in the EEZ. Look at Sealand, for example. Besides, if they seasteads are small they won’t really care.

    ____________________________________________________________________________

    Seasteading is to Boat Living what Traction Cities are to Vandwelling – simply a matter of scale.

    #10323
    Avatar of Altaica
    Altaica
    Participant

    Terraformer wrote:

    You sure about that?About what? That the UN will fὐcκ and non member over over? Yes. They did it to Minerva. It’s ungasnt International LAW to to sieze territory by force. Minerva reefs are in internation waters. So no State had any claim to them(see the ISA decission in te Fiji-Tonga disput over ownership of the reefs)

    The international Goverment is a Anarchy with out adjetives. It’s law(sic) only aply when both parties agree it does.

    Terraformer wrote:
    What do we do if the nations vote to extend territorial waters by 300nm to 500nm??

    What vote? What organization are the seastead members of that could vote to extent them?. Treeties only aply if you sign and ratiffy them. in “Customary international law” territial waters are limited to canon shot. But their is no international police force to inforce it. See France’s and others’ bitching about how the US invasion of Iraq is illegal.

    Originally, a country’s sovereign territorial waters extended 3 nautical miles or 6 km (range of cannon shot) beyond the shore. In modern times traditionally, a country’s sovereign territorial waters extend to 12 nautical miles (~19 km) beyond the shore. In the early 1970s, Ecuador claimed territorial waters extending to 200 nautical miles. They began seizing U.S. tuna-fishing boats and charging heavy fines (that the U.S. government paid). Eventually the U.S. agreed to submit the issue to the International Court of Justice at The Hague. This eventually led to the recognition of 12 nautical miles as normal for the territorial sea/waters and binding international recognition of the 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone by the Third United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in 1982.

    Terraformer wrote:
    Move out even further? Or stay where we are and fight if they try moving us?

    Then we procicute them to the fullest extent of the law.

    Not only are the Laws of War Costumary law. The treeties aslo cover how the signitaries are to treat Non-Signitaries.

    I don’t think it’s that big a deal, remaining in the EEZ. Look at Sealand, for example. Besides, if they seasteads are small they won’t really care.

    There is no such thing as small when it comes to landfill. You make a puble stick up above water and they will fight you for it so that they can claim the water around it. States sleezy used car sales men when it comes to EEZ.

    οὐκ ἐμοῦ, ἀλλὰ τοῦ λόγου ἀκούσαντας ὁμολογεῖν σοφόν ἐστιν ἓν πάντα εἶναι

    #10329
    Avatar of Altaica
    Altaica
    Participant

    Terraformer wrote:
    Besides, if they seasteads are small they won’t really care.

    You ever hear of Spiral Island, which was destroyed by Hurricane Emily in 2005 Now he’s building Spiral Island II. Mexico claimed it as Mexico’s TERRITORY, not a vessel. Even thou it was little more than a 66ft by 54 ft house boat. As far as I know the fighting has been confined to the court room.

    So what is your seasteading plan the uses a structure under 66ft by 54ft?

    ouk emou alla tou logou akousantas homologein sophon estin hen

    #10390
    Avatar of elspru
    elspru
    Participant

    Hey I just wanted to mention,

    I was inspired by this thread and made the “how to get respectfor a new flag” thread.

    http://seasteading.org/interact/forums/community/general-chat/how-get-respect-a-new-flag

    here’s a clip:

    There is a pesky bit of international law,

    that “nations” can board, seize and otherwise molest “unrecognized nations”.

    So how does one earn respect from a predator?

    Respect enough to leave alone, and find some easier prey.

    Some run, some hide, some have armour, some are thorny.

    http://seasteading.org/interact/forums/community/general-chat/how-get-respect-a-new-flag

    tranquil aware desire choice love express intuit channel

Viewing 10 posts - 16 through 25 (of 25 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.



Posted on at

Categories:

Written by

Blog/Newsletter

Donate